8. Worst Objection to Kalam Cosmological Argument: Self-contradiction of uncaused cause

http://reasonablefaith.org - Biola University, 2010 - Perhaps the worst objections to the Kalam Cosmological Argument you'll ever hear is on youtube (by youtube atheists) and the Internet. Here, Dr. William Lane Craig has fun dealing with these pseudo-intellects and their shallow understanding of the Kalam Cosmological Argument, logic and philosophy. In this episode, some atheists argue the KCA is self-contradictory because it concludes that there is a first uncaused cause.

Playlist: http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL246BE4C9900A5A5D

Related:

For more defenses against objections of the Kalam Cosmological Argument: http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=916E17EE70E98A68

10 Really Bad Youtube Objections to the Kalam Cosmological Argument:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fSluNqGxRA

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Kalam
• Cosmological
• Argument
• Contradiction
• First
• Cause
• Uncaused
• William
• Lane
• Craig
• self-contradictory
• self-contradiction
• Christian
• Apologetics
• Philosophy
• Religion
• God
• Evidence
• drcraigvideos
• special
• pleading

[Bigjon145]

If drcraigvideos posted a video that said "it is the year 2012" 10 dollars says that the youtube atheists would give the thumbs down.

[drcraigvideos]

@Bigjon145 LOL! If I said 2+2=4, they'd give me a thumbs down.

[babkrani]

The irony of this life is that i first learned about Dr Craig from youtube atheists that were shooting "Ad hominem" attacks on him ( Not surprising ), but somehow they worked, so i just didn't bother checking what he had to say. Then one day i came across a debate between him and Atkins in which i just was surprised that he could express my ideas and arguments in a very beautifull and more sophisticated way.

Now i just keep learning from Dr Craig everyday

[rainbowofhazes]

@Grinthor86 I consider myself an athiest, and it wouldn't take much to convince me otherwise. ANY supernatural phenamenon would pretty much be enough to divert me from thinking of the world in purely materialistic way, which would be a big stepping stone. However when a burnt side of a toast is claimed a miracle, whereas supposedly people witnessed Jesus and Mary ascending bodily into heaven, I don't think the miracles are on par.

[jordan6030]

Is there any atheists posting here...where are you all?? I feel like having a laugh.

[klootzakisme]

@THEEVANTHETOON

Maybe the people you are talking about have considered it in the past and didn't get enough satisfactory arguments from either you or mister Craig to reconsider. When people aren't immediately jumping your wagon, don't blame them immediately, but consider for once yourself being wrong.

Also, if the universe has a cause, why should it be a a conscient all powerfull being? Why only one being? Why should it be a being at all.

[wullz16]

@babkrani Lol, i can relate. I heard about Dr Craig through Dawkins' attack on him.

[Grinthor86]

P.s. Thanks for the upload, the channel, and all the work you put into it.

[Grinthor86]

On the subject of "what will it take to covince youtube athiest's", the bible say's (I'm paraphrasing here) "to some it has been given to see the things of God, and other's have been blinded" also "to each man has been given a measure of faith", note it does'nt say how much. It also say's "Creation screams the exsistence of God, that his invisable attribute's are visable in the creation, therefore man is without excuse" (for not believing in God). So, some are blinded, and some CHOOSE not to.

[puertoricosf]

Your awesome dude. Thanks a lot.

[youssarian91]

@THEEVANTHETOON Some people just don't want to believe, thus they never will. I was like that as an atheist. 

[THEEVANTHETOON]

@drcraigvideos

"you have to wonder what it would take to convince them"

The problem is I don't think anything will convince them. I'm currently dealing with a person who can't seem to be convinced that "All of Craig's arguments are wrong because they have been refuted". When asked to refute them, they claim they don't have to because they are making a negative claim. And they accuse Craig of faulty logic? If they were open-minded, they should consider his conclusion, yet they never do.